Re: add_partial_path() may remove dominated path but still in use - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 5:48 PM Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com> wrote:
>
> 2018年12月31日(月) 13:10 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 9:01 AM Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com> wrote:
> > > 2018年12月30日(日) 4:12 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> > > >
> > > > Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com> writes:
> > > > > 2018年12月29日(土) 1:44 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> > > > >> However, first I'd like to know why this situation is arising in the first
> > > > >> place.  To have the situation you're describing, we'd have to have
> > > > >> attempted to make some Gather paths before we have all the partial paths
> > > > >> for the relation they're for.  Why is that a good thing to do?  It seems
> > > > >> like such Gathers are necessarily being made with incomplete information,
> > > > >> and we'd be better off to fix things so that none are made till later.
> > > >
> > > > > Because of the hook location, Gather-node shall be constructed with built-in
> > > > > and foreign partial scan node first, then extension gets a chance to add its
> > > > > custom paths (partial and full).
> > > > > At the set_rel_pathlist(), set_rel_pathlist_hook() is invoked next to the
> > > > > generate_gather_paths().
> > > >
> > > > Hmm.  I'm inclined to think that we should have a separate hook
> > > > in which extensions are allowed to add partial paths, and that
> > > > set_rel_pathlist_hook should only be allowed to add regular paths.
> >
> > +1.  This idea sounds sensible to me.
> >
> > > >
> > > I have almost same opinion, but the first hook does not need to be
> > > dedicated for partial paths. As like set_foreign_pathlist() doing, we can
> > > add both of partial and regular paths here, then generate_gather_paths()
> > > may generate a Gather-path on top of the best partial-path.
> > >
> >
> > Won't it be confusing for users if we allow both partial and full
> > paths in first hook and only full paths in the second hook?
> > Basically, in many cases, the second hook won't be of much use.  What
> > advantage you are seeing in allowing both partial and full paths in
> > the first hook?
> >
> Two advantages. The first one is, it follows same manner of
> set_foreign_pathlist()
> which allows to add both of full and partial path if FDW supports parallel-scan.
> The second one is practical. During the path construction, extension needs to
> check availability to run (e.g, whether operators in WHERE-clause is supported
> on GPU device...), calculate its estimated cost and so on. Not a small
> portion of
> them are common for both of full and partial path. So, if the first
> hook accepts to
> add both kind of paths at once, extension can share the common properties.
>

You have a point, though I am not sure how much difference it can
create for cost computation as ideally, both will have different
costing model.  I understand there are some savings by avoiding some
common work, is there any way to cache the required information?

> Probably, the second hook is only used for a few corner case where an extension
> wants to manipulate path-list already built, like pg_hint_plan.
>

Okay, but it could be some work for extension authors who are using
the current hook, not sure they would like to divide the work between
first and second hook.


--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com